Originally posted by melgrossYou know that if you buy an internal drive cable, or some such nonsense, you can get the Professional OEM copy for, I think it is $89. Though the price might be somewhat higher now.

Of course, MS won't support it directly.

Really? That's mad!

I didn't know that. Then again I've never bought a copy of Windows as I've always worked for a company that developed Windows software. I've only ever owned 1 Windows laptop personally and that came with Windows 95. That got replaced with BeOS. My desktop got BeOS from the start, then Linux. Before that I only had Amigas at home. No Macs even.

I've a copy of Windows2000 I got in an MSDN developer pack back when I was working as a Windows dev which is running on VirtualPC on my iMac but that's it now.

So do you have to scout around for these OEM copies with a cable or just hang about on eBay?

You can actually create an SP2 installation CD from an original XP installation CD -- Google the words XP SP2 slipstreaming.

Quote:

Originally posted by pmjoeWell, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.

Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.

Originally posted by KickahaExactly. Which is why I don't think you'll see Apple provide an easier way to do so.

Why would they want you to switch *BACK* to Windows?

Don't fool yourself, this is a one-way migration tool masquerading as a dual-boot system.

And this is why Virtual PC is still better for me. I really don't care how slow Internet explorer is in VPC as all my development is in the Mac side. I just need to check my web design work in IE6, which isn't available on the Mac. That's the only reason I have to run Windows. Dual booting so I have to boot into windows, then back to OSX to write code, then boot to Windows to test just isn't going to work.

Originally posted by aegisdesignAnd this is why Virtual PC is still better for me. I really don't care how slow Internet explorer is in VPC as all my development is in the Mac side. I just need to check my web design work in IE6, which isn't available on the Mac. That's the only reason I have to run Windows. Dual booting so I have to boot into windows, then back to OSX to write code, then boot to Windows to test just isn't going to work.

Yup, I'm in the same boat - about once every two months, I need to make a couple of passes on data with a stats package on Windows. VPC is great for that, because I can just copy the results over to an article immediately and keep working on other things while it is crunching away.

I'm concerned about this situation too. I hope that Apple makings things such that something written in xcode [e.g. quartz, etc] can be compiled to run on windows and linux. That would change the situation. I think the openstep api originally had this idea in it...

Quote:

Originally posted by AndersMy take:

First thing that will happen: Alienware will lose a large part of their portable customers.

Next thing: A moderate progress in the number of switchers.

Then: New middle to large sized apps will be Windows only. Most developers stop developing for Mac at the next large transition (be that processor or API), UNLESS Apple give them a good reason not to (much greater distance between Mac OS and WIndows).

So short term good move, long term bad move, UNLESS Apple use its comparable legacy-free situation to make advantages compared to WIndows

I didn't know that. Then again I've never bought a copy of Windows as I've always worked for a company that developed Windows software. I've only ever owned 1 Windows laptop personally and that came with Windows 95. That got replaced with BeOS. My desktop got BeOS from the start, then Linux. Before that I only had Amigas at home. No Macs even.

I've a copy of Windows2000 I got in an MSDN developer pack back when I was working as a Windows dev which is running on VirtualPC on my iMac but that's it now.

So do you have to scout around for these OEM copies with a cable or just hang about on eBay?

No, many websites will sell it to you that way. If you really want, I'll try and post a couple, assuming that the links will work, as the one I've been trying to post hasn't.

i tend to agree. i think darwine will provide this functionality for apps on which it works, but i doubt apple will ever support this capability.

Quote:

Originally posted by CrazyWingmanPersonally, I just don't see the "Windows apps running transparently alongside OSX apps" functionality coming from Apple that a lot of people here are hoping for. Why? Because it would ruin the consistent* OSX experience.

Apple works very hard to make all of their apps feel the same. It's part of a good UI - make everything work the same so the user develops a sense of trust and intuition about how the system behaves. Drop Windows applications in unchanged - with their window-attached toolbars and differently arranged menus - and the experience will go to hell.

We've seen it happen already - people love to complain about how X Windows applications feel out of place on OSX. I think there were only two reasons Apple included X Windows functionality. First, it meant that they had a load of applications, right off the bat, that were fairly simple to port to OSX. Second, having a known, standard technology that is popular among the university crowd was a great draw for early adopters, who tend to be from the university crowd. I know some will say that these two points apply perfectly to Windows apps as well, but I think there is a difference.

The difference is that people who wanted to run X Windows apps on OSX were used to inconsistent interfaces. They expected every single X app to behave [sometimes completely] differently. So, mucking their UI was no big deal. Your average Windows user, OTOH doesn't put up with near as much. I'll say that the Windows interface is not nearly as consistent as OSX's, but it is definitely more consistent than X Windows. Just letting any old Windows program pop up a window on an OSX desktop will confuse the average user. (And if Apple advertises that it's possible, many average users will want to do it whether they need to or not.) They won't understand why this one app looks totally different than their others.

So, after that whole rant, I'd like to say that if Apple does provide the ability to run Windows apps without a reboot, I think we'll see something like a fast user switch to a Windows desktop that you can start in the background. Only there will you be able to launch and use Windows apps - keeping the visuals separate. There may be some nice cut&paste mechanism for getting data back and forth, but there will still be a line drawn somewhere.

My $0.02,
CrazyWingman

*Yes, I know, we can all point out several places where OSX is already inconsistent, but I'd consider those places meaningless in comparison to Windows apps in OSX.

I hate to disagree with my distinguished colleague (sorry Anders) but I just don't see #3 happening unless Apple ships virtualization of Windows, or hosting of Windows apps directly, by default. I just don't.

There are still competitors (mostly) to the big apps on the Mac side, with the exception of Office. (Sorry OpenOffice guys, but you're just not there quite yet.) (Nice that that five-year agreement just got renewed, eh?)

Every big developer is going to lose a ton of customers if they drop Mac support and tell them to dual boot. That's lost $. They'd *ALL* have to ditch in unison, otherwise their competition is going to come swooping in and snatch them away. If one goes, the others have more incentive to stay. Seriously - what % of Adobe's customers are Mac? Isn't it something really skewed (compared to overall marketshare) like 25-30%? You think they're going to leave that sitting on the table?

The small developers don't have the clout to even begin to tell users to dual boot. Besides, how many small devs are there out there that support Mac and WIndows both? \ The small Mac houses are going to stay Mac.

Virtualization is a whole other kettle of fish, but that's not what we've got here, and I don't see that happening until Cocoa/Win is a contender. Which will likely be never.

Originally posted by Gene CleanWell, it's clear it's a beta. I downloaded it, installed it and wanted to run it. The first thing it said was: "upgrade your firmware". No link, no nothing. OK. So now I have to hunt for firmware upgrades.

So as I'm doing that, I find the firmware for Mac mini's (I have the Core Duo version). I download it, try to install it and it tells me 'This firmware cannot be upgraded on this computer'. Why? It's the only firmware upgrade for Intel Mac mini's and it's for the 'early 2006' Mac mini's.

You can't install XP because you need to upgrade your firmware, but you can't upgrade your firmware because your computer already has something that's newer than the one offered. This is great.

Have you already tried the previous hack to get Windows on your Mac? Apparently that interferes with the firmware update.

Originally posted by KickahaI hate to disagree with my distinguished colleague (sorry Anders) but I just don't see #3 happening unless Apple ships virtualization of Windows, or hosting of Windows apps directly, by default. I just don't.

There are still competitors (mostly) to the big apps on the Mac side, with the exception of Office. (Sorry OpenOffice guys, but you're just not there quite yet.) (Nice that that five-year agreement just got renewed, eh?)

Every big developer is going to lose a ton of customers if they drop Mac support and tell them to dual boot. That's lost $. They'd *ALL* have to ditch in unison, otherwise their competition is going to come swooping in and snatch them away. If one goes, the others have more incentive to stay. Seriously - what % of Adobe's customers are Mac? Isn't it something really skewed (compared to overall marketshare) like 25-30%? You think they're going to leave that sitting on the table?

The small developers don't have the clout to even begin to tell users to dual boot. Besides, how many small devs are there out there that support Mac and WIndows both? \ The small Mac houses are going to stay Mac.

Virtualization is a whole other kettle of fish, but that's not what we've got here, and I don't see that happening until Cocoa/Win is a contender. Which will likely be never.

It depends on who these developers are.

If they are Mac only developers, then they can make the choice to spend more bucks and move to Windows, and keep their Mac development team , until, and unless the Mac side dies to them (their customers moving to Windows). A large number of Mac only developers have done this over the years.

If they develop for both the Mac and Windows now, they could phase out their Mac programs as more people buy Macs, and install Windows.

Windows only developers, of course, can only gain here. They now have the possibility of their programs being used by Mac users who might never have considered their programs before. A certain catagory of program fits that description (it shall remain nameless).

The difficulty that has been discussed about this over the years is that Mac users, finding their most important program now only on Windows, might have no choice but to switch.

I don't agree that vitualization will make it easier for that to happen than dual bootint. I think that it is the other way around.

Dual booting makes it more likely that people will stay in Windows if they are booted there, because of the hassle.

Originally posted by Mr. HIt's O.K., don't be scared. Many years ago Apple sold Macs that also had PCs inside them, and that didn't drive the developers away.

I would say there is a small very long-term risk that Mac OS will die out, but what's interesting is that no-one has mentioned that this wouldn't actually lead to Apple's demise. They'd just become another Windows PC manufacturer.

Don't be.

?? Which were?

The first and only real viruses for OSX were run in classic mode (look it up ).

I'm still worried about less demand for OS X-only software leading, eventually to less supply. If you can run a windows program on a mac anyway, just not as well, that could make the difference between "let's do a cross-platform app" and "well, it sucks but the mac users can deal with it."

Like the el-reg article, adobe's uber-apps come to mind. (sits in the corner in a fetal position).

I also really don't want a virtual machine mode for windows in os x.. there's no way apple could plug that security hole (they never did, entirely, with "classic").

Also, if you can access your OS X files from windows, that too would be a problem... windows viruses could, permission-free, fiddle with stuff.

One thing that I haven't really seen mention of on here is another possible response from Microsoft. What if they optimize a version of XP for Mac machines? This would not be that difficult for them to support.

You say...
What would be the point of that?
Well, what if you are a Mac user that has not really messed with windows since the 3.1 days? You install XP out of curiousity. You find yourself booting into it to try some apps that aren't out for the Mac. You find you aren't having nearly as many issues as you thought you would. It makes you start wondering...

The fact that many of the stories they have heard are greatly overstated won't help either. They don't have any blue screens of death. They realize that if they run a firewall and don't frequent porn or warez sites that they really aren't that likely to get a virus or spyware. Suddenly, they find themselves booting into XP more and more for the latest games, apps, etc.

This scenario would definitely give developers a reason to only introduce XP apps and would likely result in the scenario pointed to on Slashdot.

Also the fact that Apple has been taking on more and more of a development role helps/doesn't help their cause. If they end up being the only one making major apps for OSX other than MS Office, then they would definitely be in a no win scenario.

You say well...
That's fine. PC users can pay for a Mac to run XP. True, but it seems like Apple also generates sales from OS upgrades. If people are not upgrading OSX and they aren't upgrading their machines as often that would definitely move apple towards more of a Dell or HP scenario. (i.e. iPods, monitor, and computer sales)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I think Microsoft is taking enough of a beating right now on Vista that they don't have time to worry about this and don't really care. We will see if that holds true.

I've got the open source xp on my machine right now, and I'm pretty sure that the firmware upgrade suceeded. It doesn't matter though, I'm erasing the windows partition, reinstalling mac, and then running Boot Camp. First I've just got to wait for all my junk to back up!

Originally posted by DeaPeaJayI've got the open source xp on my machine right now, and I'm pretty sure that the firmware upgrade suceeded. It doesn't matter though, I'm erasing the windows partition, reinstalling mac, and then running Boot Camp. First I've just got to wait for all my junk to back up!

woops, never mind, I just checked the unread articles on AI and found I have to download those MANUALLY! woot

Originally posted by Gene CleanActually no. I do, however, have the files downloaded to my harddrive. I can't imagine that it would not install because I have those files in a .zip folder in my harddrive?

But stranger things have happened, so off to deleting them and trying again.

Nope, same problem.

Verify your drive. Make sure everything ok. That can stop this in its tracks.

Originally posted by melgross
The difficulty that has been discussed about this over the years is that Mac users, finding their most important program now only on Windows, might have no choice but to switch.

Well that assumes that Apple would stand still. Highly unlikely in my view. In my mind this only convinces me that Apple is committed to developing platform critical apps such as MS office and Adobe Creative Suite. They couldn't allow the above senario to occur.

Originally posted by TenoBellApple cannot do it all alone, they need a development community.

I don't disagree but with apps that are critical to the viability of the platform it looks to me like Apple is willing to do the developement. Unlike MS I bet Apple would tolerate competition. But with boot camp they can't tolerate an adobe saying " we recognize that apple users can now boot into windows therfore we are going to concentrate all our efforts on win cs". Surely if we have discussed this senario here on these forums, it's been discuused at Apple. They surely have a contingency plan.

Name the Mac developers that can tell their users "Oh well, we've decided to drop Mac support - just spend an additional $100-200 and then you can buy our Windows version on top of that...", and have them snap to and do it. I can't think of one. It'd be marketshare suicide for the app.

Heck, users bitch whine and moan about *regular* upgrade pricing - you think they're going to blow the money on a Windows license just to run an app? \

Like I said, it'd take every developer in an entire market segment ditching simultaneously to actually cause a problem, and I just don't see that happening. For every Adobe that might ditch, there are a couple other developers waiting in the wings, salivating at grabbing some of that marketshare.

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders," Steve Jobs said before a crowd of several thousand IT executives referring to the newly unprofitable status of Dell Corporation since the launch of BootCamp and Mac OS X Leopard.